Notable Quotable:

Notable Quotable:

Remember, folks: whenever a woman says "die for me because you are a man," just look her in the eye and say "my body, my choice."
TCM

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Why Is The Spearhead One of the Leading Men's Sites?

Because of articles like this:

Mr. Price gets it, and expresses it eloquently


" But (Morris Dees) is a strong, resourceful, unintimidated man, and that’s what counts.
For women, however, it’s a different ball game. Women’s power rests largely on the public perception of femininity as inherently good. This perception is instinctive for men, who are programmed to see all sorts of goodness in women from birth. It’s an enormous source of power, but it isn’t guaranteed, hence women’s constant insecurity over what people think of them. For the most part, it is quite literally based upon the male concept of beauty. Men see beautiful women and this activates the “good” response in their brains. Men then immediately fall all over themselves to serve the woman in order to obtain some of this goodness.
But a couple changes have come about. The “women good” perception can be severely damaged by certain things. First, men do not feel good when the woman they desire is screwing other men. It’s very distressing to them on an instinctive level, and today women are very promiscuous. Secondly, when women start acting like men (e.g. compete with them in careers), it also significantly erodes their appeal. Combine promiscuity with competition in the workplace, and women have really shot themselves in the foot. It’s like a reverse makeover where they come out looking uglier than when they went in. To men, feminists have begun to epitomize all the worst things about contemporary females, and young women are starting to catch on and run very quickly away from the feminist label."

"It's an enormous source of power..."

In fact it is women's primary source of power.  Without it, women have a huge (possibly overwhelming) obstacle to overcome. Women must compete with men.  If men stop consenting to handicap themselves in competition with women, because the rewards for doing so are becoming increasingly unappealing, women will have to work much harder to earn their status and resources.  Most will fall short.  Most already do; without social pressure and government mandates demanding and requiring male consent, most women would be exhausted and relatively poor (and/or utterly dependent on consenting friends and extended family) especially women with children.

Men and women are designed to be allies, not enemies.  The natural male/female alliance is the foundation of our civilization.  Men want to be our allies, but we make it increasingly difficult for them, as we have removed or greatly diminished most of the incentives for men to do so.  It is only their overwhelming desire to be our allies, that has blinded them to the reality of those diminished incentives.

Men are waking up and realizing that the emperor is stark naked.  Bravo.  I hope I live to see a world where once again, women thrive under our own steam, instead of on borrowed power.  Grrrl Power is an illusion.  Women's power, the natural power with which we are born, is a sight to behold.  Grrrl Power repels men; women's power attracts men.  Indeed it is the inborn desire to ally themselves* with women's power, that drives men to every sort of greatness.    


*I don't mean "ride the coattails of."  I mean "engage in mutually beneficial exchange with."

46 comments:

  1. Please define Women Power and compare it with Grrrl Power. I believe it would make for a very interesting blog post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. See, here's the thing: I look at women I know, and I see mothers, wives, companions. I love and respect them all. I have seen them do things I cannot do, and things I only dream of doing. And i see into their hearts and see that they are as strong as the roots of the universe when they need to be, and when they are weak or broken it hurts me all the more because I know what it took to overcome that amazing strength. Women are God's most precious gift to Men, and everything that profanes or lessens that gift is very ungodly in my eyes. Just my .02

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes.
      It is women, not men, who have thrown that gift into the gutter and stomped all over it. Granted, men have colluded, in a vain attempt to win the approval of the women they love and want, but it is of course men who are leading the charge to repair the damage. Smart women, as smart women always have, will follow good leaders. A few smart women will even BE good leaders, "few" and "good" being the operative words here.

      Delete
    2. The forfeiture of their natural talents in favor of gaining a pseudo-penis

      Delete
  3. "Indeed it is the inborn desire to ally themselves* with women's power, that drives men to every sort of greatness".
    So true, and very eloquently put.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's why I get so annoyed. I don't think it's right or fair that all my power resides in my uterus and my looks. I'm a human being, I can walk, talk, sit, stand (well, stand most of the time), type fairly quickly, operate machine levers, do math, read...I am a human being. Why does my sole power in this world mean that "investing in my future" means buying up a bunch of Maybelline, rather than starting up a 401K?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it right or fair that all of most men's power resides in their penises and their muscles? That men are valued most for their ability to provide for a family or their willingness to die protecting other people's families?

      What is this ethereal, glamorous "privilege" men have, that women want so badly? Badly enough to reject their natural femininity, and try to imitate men. Rather poorly, it turns out.

      It has been many many years since anyone in our culture has tried to prevent women from going out on their own, working hard, and producing more than they consume (or even as much as they consume.) Women have the right to do this and some women make the most of that right. But the majority of women never tire of telling us how desperately they need men and/or the government to spend trillions of dollars financing women's housing, food, birth control, higher education, useless and non-productive careers, and everything else that most men have always provided for themselves.
      "Why does my sole power in this world mean that "investing in my future" means buying up a bunch of Maybelline, rather than starting up a 401K?"

      Strawman. Nobody believes that is your sole power. However, femininity is most women's GREATEST power. It is Woman Power, rather than Grrrl Power. These days women demand all the perks that femininity has always earned them, but they refuse to be feminine. If you want to play the male/female game, you should endeavor to actually BE the female. If you don't want to play the male/female game, be whatever you want, but don't expect to be treated like a female.

      Delete
    2. Well of course that last bit is a strawman, it's an exaggeration to explain what this argument looks like to me. That's how I've grown up explaining things...not exaggerating my argument, but exaggerating what I see as my opponent's argument so I can try to get the point across of how it seems to me.

      But...
      "Women’s power rests largely on the public perception of femininity as inherently good."
      "For the most part, it is quite literally based upon the male concept of beauty."
      "Women's power, the natural power with which we are born, is a sight to behold."

      Those sum up why I came up with that strawman. Women's power is based largely on the idea that beauty is good. This would, therefore, mean that an ugly woman has no power, or at best, hugely diminished power. Men's power lasts their entire lives, but I need to make use of my looks while I've got them, because once I get old and ugly, my power has vanished, because I no longer fit the male standard of beauty and femininity?

      Yes, exactly. I want to be treated like an equal...as you said, men and women are meant to be equals, etc...but I don't want that equality to be because I look good. It doesn't feel right that I need to endeavor to look good, act sweet and polite, etc, just to get respect. This is exemplified by the women we have in politics today. We look at Obama, Romney, whoever, and we say "He seems powerful" or "I agree with his policies" or "He uses logic well". Hilary Clinton? "She's so freaking ugly!" "I'm not gonna listen to what that cow says". There are plenty of examples online, with other women in politics. Men are allowed to have logic, but women have to be attractive before we'll listen to them. Quasimodo could run for president and win, because he has a brain, but if a woman wants to win, she has to be Esmeralda.
      And yes, that last bit about the Hunchback of Notre Dame is probably a strawman. It's not meant to be logic, it's meant to be an illustration.

      Delete
    3. "because once I get old and ugly, my power has vanished, because I no longer fit the male standard of beauty and femininity?"

      When you get old and ugly, only your Grrrl Power will vanish - your power to entice a new high-status man into paying your bills. You won't need Grrl Power if you have developed woman power. Femininity is an attitude, not a look. I am literally having to do research on how best to describe it, because it is so rare these days. Not many people know what it looks like.

      Delete
    4. Found this earlier. Sums up my thoughts on feminism neatly.

      http://persassyjackson.tumblr.com/post/38445541472/feminists-hey-wed-like-for-women-to-be-treated

      Are there things that you can point to and say "that's femininity"? That could help define it.

      In my mind, I hear "feminine" and that equates to "femininity". And in my daily life, I hear "feminine" and see it translate to "weak" (sometimes simply "dumb" or "gullible"). That's not necessarily your definition, but it's the definition I see in society, my daily life. That goes for both how feminists see it and at the same time, how others see it. The problem and the only reason I am a feminist is that it feels like I'm looked down on when I act feminine, but at the same time, I catch flak when I act unfeminine. The things that work into being feminine, that I see, are:
      high pitched voice, deferring to others, quiet, polite, traditionally "girly"
      and masculine is the opposite, the deep loud voice, the traditionally male look and actions. Polite can work into it, when it's a gentleman, and deferring to those with more knowledge is considered a good thing.
      But when I wear the pretty skirts that I love so much, and frilly things, and gorgeous sky blue things, I have long hair or I talk about wanting or doing traditionally feminine pursuits, I get treated like a female child, I become helpless and I don't know what I'm talking about.

      Case in point.
      I like short hair, it's comfortable, but I tend to grow it out in winter because I'm cheap and hair covers my ears just as well as earmuffs.

      When I was about 17 I started keeping a log, because I had noticed a trend. I usually cut my hair short around my birthday (March) and let it grow out the rest of the year, so by winter, it's long enough to cover my cold ears and neck.

      But the longer my hair grows (fitting into the more feminine stereotype) the more often my viewpoint gets challenged. The February just before I turned 17, I mentioned to my mom that I wanted to go get a basic gynecological check-up. I'm not sexually active, I just wanted to make sure everything was functioning ok. She assured me that no, I don't actually want that.
      in mid-March I ended up going for the checkup.
      Later that year, around November, I told her I wanted a LadyCup. She argued that I don't actually want one. It got ordered with tax refund money towards the end of March, right after I turned 18 (still use it, too. Saved me more money than anything else, and I just ordered another online because they come in pretty colors). It looks like there was a day, a few days after my haircut this year, that I explained my college plan to my parents, that I have financials worked out, etc. They agreed with it, the classes I was planning on, etc. In June, they started questioning me almost daily. My father insisted on going over my financials, despite having trusted me back in March. Apparently, in June, my math skills seem substandard.

      Yes, there are other explanations for that, and it's circumstantial. I truly stink at research...you can ask my professors this semester (*sigh*). So my beliefs tend to be based in experiences.

      Delete
    5. You just described human instinct influencing your parents' behavior, without them consciously realizing it.
      I am actually having a hard time defining "adult" femininity, it has become rare in modern society. Femininity does inspire a natural desire to protect, but before feminism, that protection was usually not (and usually not PERCEIVED to be) the same sort of protection given to children. Unlike the protection given to children, it honored women - for their potential ability to contribute to society what nobody else can - children. Why would we honor someone whose ability to contribute manual labor (which men are honored for) is restricted by her size and strength?

      There is a passage in the Bible (which I can't recall) that describes an honorable wife. She spins, weaves, and/or sews garments to sell. Her labor (in addition to childrearing, is admired because it "honors her husband," which means it honors her family (the husband is considered the head of the family - it is him/he is it.) She does this "professional" work, not as an individual but as a respected part of a whole.

      Throughout history society has disapproved of men who produce wealth and keep it for themselves instead of using it to create families (except warriors and others who "sacrifice" themselves to extremely dangerous work.) On the other hand, "spinsters" who lived and worked independently were not disrespected for supporting themselves, probably because they weren't capable of amassing the kind of wealth that could potentially support a productive family. They were respected for not being burdens to society. (Oddly enough, prostitutes were a completely separate class. The service they provided was deemed necessary to the well-being of those non-reproducing/self sacrificing men. Prostitutes, including madams and mistresses, were never considered "respectable" due to the "morality" of their profession, but nobody resented the wealth they earned, even when there was a lot of it. Like I said, their contribution to society was considered necessary, and valued as such.

      Femininity is like submission, in that it has been bastardized to be seen as weakness. It is actually cooperation, extremely intimate and often self-sacrificing cooperation, which is an aptitude women recognize and (appropriately) value in themselves. Modern women brag about our innate talent for communication and interaction, yet we've been taught by feminism that those skills are wasted when we use them to build strong families with men. We're expected to use those skills socially and professionally, but apparently our husbands and children aren't worthy of our best.

      The link you provided is full of half-truths. Feminism does not want women to be treated equally. It want women to be treated like victims of oppression who deserve an extra boost. Many individual women who consider themselves feminists, don't really want that, but every law, every EEOC policy, every family court, proposed and enacted on behalf of "feminism," is designed to give that "boost" to women-as-victims. What you are describing is egalitarianism, not feminism. Egalitarianism is an EQUAL combination of feminism and Masculinism, yet most self-identified egalitarian feminists cringe at the word "masculinism."

      Delete
    6. Human instinct...tells us not to trust anyone noticeably fitting into the traditional frame of femininity?

      You want all men to be respected, but wouldn't that mean that a man who simply doesn't have muscles, weight, etc wouldn't get respected, or would be respected the same as a woman? Like...hm. Several guys I know are thinner than I am, and the only reason they aren't weaker is because my body strength is pretty much nil (stupid joints. I love my body, I swear I do, but I just wanna exchange it for an identical model that actually functions like it should...)
      (this bit is based off "Why would we honor someone whose ability to contribute manual labor (which men are honored for) is restricted by her size and strength?")

      Yes, this is a "not all women" argument, but not all women are weaker than all men. I'm sure these are the outliers you acknowledged before, but they are still people. If a woman were to be physically and mentally capable of and willing to do a man's work, would she then earn the right to be treated as an equal of a man? A man I know, an engineer, has female colleagues who, he admits, do the same exact work he does and do it well. When he talks about them, he says it as "Yeah, she's a pretty good woman engineer"
      Even though, by his own admission, they do the same work he does and do it well. He agrees that they are his equals, in terms of their work, but he also finds it important to emphasize their gender.

      And that is why I'm the feminist left standing. I'm honestly sitting here totally confused...I'm a member of Scarleteen, feminist, sex-positive sex ed (don't knock it till you check it out. It's body ed, sexuality ed, it's awesome and I love them, and I'd really heavily suggest you check them out and send any young people you know their way. Seriously, love them. Hellyeahscarleteen.tumblr.com), I've read stuff on Jezebel, and I regularly rock out to all my favorite strong female country singers. And I agree with the vast majority of what I read...there are things that I read and think "Now I have words to explain what I noticed, but could never actually say". But the concept of masculinism doesn't bug me a bit. It's that some people use that concept as an excuse for being complete jerks.

      As I said way back when I started talking...
      I like debating. It is FUN. Plus, I can't understand my own argument until someone tries to smash it apart and makes me defend it. Talking to people who agree with me is useless. So refusing to listen to anyone else's logic is a good way to have a terrible argument.

      Delete
    7. Good questions. Now I'm going to reframe them in a different light.

      "Human instinct...tells us not to trust anyone noticeably fitting into the traditional frame of femininity?"

      What if "not trusting" is actually "protecting?"
      What was your dad's response after he looked at your financials? Was he stunned that you "got it right," or was he not surprised, because he knows he can count on your intelligence? Looking over your work to assure himself that you're on the right track is his way of offering you guidance that you might not know you need. And if you don't need it, it's still generous of him to offer. He offers guidance to your brother too, doesn't he? Your "feminine" appearance triggers his natural tendency to protect you, even though knows you probably don't need much protection in this area. Only feminism considers this an insult. In reality it is as natural to a parent as breathing.

      Regarding your engineer friend, the poor guy probably doesn't know how to compliment a woman without offending her. And to call her a good "woman" engineer is a high compliment indeed. The vast majority of women's brains are not as good at developing and using the kind of pure linear logic required in engineering. If his colleague is a "good women engineer," it is for one of two reasons: Either she is extremely disciplined and has overcome her brain's natural limitations, or she is extremely unusual because she has a very male-like brain. One way or the other, a "good women engineer" is an extraordinary person. Feminism keeps insisting that that the differences between make and female brains are unremarkable, and that "good woman engineers" are as common as ants at a picnic. They aren't, and this guy knows it.

      Regarding male respect for other males, what men respect in other men is relative dominance over their environment. A scrawny, weak or even physically disabled man who can design and make the tools strong men use, is respected by strong men. Honor is also a part of it, but I'm not qualified to explain male honor.)

      Women will never fit into the male hierarchy because men instinctively see women differently than they see other men. While men can recognize, respect and reward "dominant" traits in women, those traits do not appeal to men. A dominant women is instinctively seen as more like a man and less like a woman. She is not seen as less of a person, and this is not discrimination; men also don't fit into the female hierarchy. Male nurses, grade school teachers, daycare providers, hairstylist - they may have inborn aptitudes for their work or they may have developed awe inspiring skills in their fields, but they are not part of the female social hierarchy. Even in the most non-sexual environments, men and women respond differently to members of tho opposite sex than they do to members of their own sex. ALWAYS. The feminist theory that "gender is a social construct" that can and should be overcome, is patently false.

      If you want some insight into the dynamics of male honor, take a look at this article:

      http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/beyond-breaking-point.html

      Delete
    8. It's difficult for me to equate my father guiding my brother, something he actually needs to do (again, developmental disorder stuff, but I do get what you're trying to say, and if my brother were neurotypical, it'd be a safe comparison), with my parents doubting what I say and do. It still means that feminine=young or childish. In essence, this snippet of human nature is saying that eventually, we grow out of being feminine...if feminine is triggering a protective instinct in parents, but the opposite somehow clicks a switch in their brain that says that this is an adult or close enough that they don't need the help. How come my brother, or males in general, don't have to have bulked-up muscles to get this parental guidance, but for the parental instinct to kick in for a girl, they have to look like a girl? If it's natural to parents, why do they back down and not offer guidance when I break the normal feminine look, though I'm still their child. What that signals to me is that it's not just a parental instinct, or if it is, it's a sexist instinct. Heck, I was born bald and ugly, so it's not like having long hair really signals "this is my kid!". Plus, I spent the vast majority of my childhood with short hair, because I wouldn't brush it and keep tangles out when it was long (long hair is more trouble than it's worth).

      I used examples of my parents, but there's also the guy who isn't related to me at all, simply a friend. He's 24, I've known him for a while. One day he messaged me on Facebook to say that I was going to make some guy lucky, and he'd be interested, if only he were younger and more handsome. I added on "And female" and explained, quite clearly, that I have absolutely no attraction to guys. This was around April. My hair grew out a lot while I was at college, I visited for Thanksgiving break, and he sent me another message a week or so later. "I know I'm probably wasting my time, but I really think we'd be good together."
      When he knew my orientation and that a relationship was not happening, because I explained, clearly, that Sorry, but you're male, and I'm not interested in that. I'd say that it was simply the male brain saying long hair=straight, but I like to give guys more credit than that, and assume that they don't actually think that a woman changes her orientation with her haircut.

      Wouldn't calling her "an engineer" be a bigger compliment? If she does the same work, and does it well, wouldn't it be a better compliment, especially to him as "an engineer", to offer her the same status?

      Men don't get into female social circles because we go back to the overall concept that being womanly is insulting, and hanging out with women makes you a woman. There are men who've tried to be in the same social circles as women (straight men) and they do perfectly well. You saw this when I showed you the "Why I'm a Feminist" post on Sheroes (from a male user) and I could point you to a couple of our most active users, a man who is one of our moderators and a man whose arguments and logic you would absolutely love (who is, indeed, welcomed in our circle). Men who join cheerleading squads, do ballet, etc, are derided as being gay...they're taught that they shouldn't join the same social circles as women, and girls learn as children that the boys don't want to talk to them, just pull their pigtails (very slight exaggeration on that last one...from my perspective, at least). If we start off from childhood ignoring gender, then maybe we won't treat genders differently. It's impossible to say that this is all based on what we're hardwired for, when we have the environment around us as well. None of us exists in a bubble.

      Delete
    9. You're right that environment has a large influence, but nobody knows how much.

      It's possible that "feminine=young" to a slight degree, and in modern culture this may be enhanced by our obsession with "youth" as the ideal. We're not big on dignity and maturity in the West. But in men's eyes, "femininity" also equals "wife/mother," who, along with the children and property, need to be protected. This doesn't mean men see women as "property" any more than women see men as property - both sexes are equally possessive of their mates.

      I do think that the attraction to long hair on women may be cultural, because we evolved before "long" or "short" hair styles. HEALTHY hair can be an indication of overall health, which is good for reproduction.

      I don't agree that men fit into women's hierarchy. Men are welcomed into women's fields, but they are treated differently. There is always the underlying question of "why is he here?" and they are constantly being judged according to "male" standards. They are thought of, and treated, as men, by the women with whom they work. Unless they're disabled, they are always expected (implicitly if not explicitly) to do the heave/dirty work. Most of them also expect this of themselves an volunteer for it before the women even have a chance to become aware of this expectation.

      Men in female fields don't get offended when women treat them as Men With "Womanly" Skills, but women are taught to be offended when men treat them as Women With "Manly" Skills. This "offense" is an entirely learned behavior - taught by feminism.

      Delete
    10. ...more...
      I think that the "social" teaching that boys and girls should "play" separately, is based on genuine biologically-based aptitudes and interests. As a child, I had both masculine and feminine interests and aptitudes, but I was unusual. I was the only girl who WANTED to play with my brother's toys. And certainly in the physical realm we separate more as we grow up - most girls are weaker and can't keep up or compete with boys. Girls used to accept the fact that only a VERY few of them could compete with boys in boy-oriented fields, and boys accepted those few and even admired them. Now boys are forced to "accept" and "admire" any girl who WANTS to play with the boys, whether she's good at their activities or not.

      The idea of ignoring gender is an interesting experiment, but it can only be attempted in a society that is large enough to be safe. When the survival of the group is in question, "traditional" and partly hardwired roles, are what keep is from going extinct. Our greater intelligence allows us to wonder "what it" and to expand those roles, but if those roles weren't hardwired, we wouldn't be here.

      And if we REALLY ignored gender, there would be almost no females in the military, due to their strength. "Female Only" scholarships would disappear and girls would have to compete head-to-head with boys academically. Human Resources Directors would become payroll the and benefits clerks they once were, because corporations would no longer be under pressure to "hire more female managers," whether they're qualified to run a technical department or not. If we ignored gender, the Violence Against Women Act would not exist, and hundreds of thousands of government jobs (jobs that DO NOT reduce violence) would cease to exist. If gender were ignored, no college would offer Women's Studies, except as a quaint elective. If gender were ignored, children of divorce (along with child support $$ and government aid) would go to the most stable and qualified parent.)

      Do you see where I'm going with this? If we ignored gender, and judged every individual according to his or her abilities, the most influential and powerful feminists on the planet WOULD LOSE EVERYTHING. Feminism thrives on the existence of "artificial" sex roles, and it's feminists who are arbitrarily assigning those roles - in blatant contradiction of biological sex roles. Feminism is a multi-billion dollar industry which ensures that women will be paid to do work for which they are not qualified or needed.

      Delete
    11. " As a child, I had both masculine and feminine interests and aptitudes, but I was unusual. I was the only girl who WANTED to play with my brother's toys"

      I hate to point out the obvious, but how long has it been since you were a child? Easy-Bake Ovens, what've always been considered a girl's toy so the girl can make dinner, is redesigning their colors so it's gender-neutral for the little girl who wanted to buy one for her brother, because he loved hers. My brother loved mine. There's a guy in a comic I read who loved Easy-Bake. Those are HUGE for boys right now, because boys created a demand for them. I loved Legos, and Tinkertoys, and Lincoln Logs, and sneaking off with my brother's G.I. Joe toys, and I was the one coming up with the stupid dangerous games (my brother was younger and weaker, so he was the test subject. Like the day I ran a loose clothesline through the handles of a big cooking pot my grandma left in the yard for us to mess with. One end was already secured to the clothesline post, but the other was loose. So I held the loose end down and instructed my brother to sit in the pot and pull his way up the line. I told him if he flipped to just hang onto the line and he'd be fine, but of course he let go...*eyeroll* and yes, he was fine. But seriously, I was the dangerous kid. And just about every other girl I knew was exactly like that. It wasn't until we got into sixth or seventh grade that the other girls stopped climbing the monkey bars and beating the heck out of the boys at Red Rover and instead spent their entire recess practicing for the junior cheerleading squad. I was actually the weakest girl around...the vast majority of them beat the boys without any sort of special rules)

      What I'm talking about is ignoring gender in terms of assigning a stereotypical sex role. Let the little girls play with the Tinkertoys, maybe we'll get more "woman engineers", instead of princess-wannabes. Let the little boy play with the barbie if he wants. And you must know feminists that I don't, cause I don't know any feminists who try to put men and women into sex roles, regardless of whether they're artificial or biologically based. I want to be able to do what I want. I want men to do what they want. If I want to be a homemaker and Johnny wants to be an astronaut, then yippee for everyone involved!!! I'm at school for a teaching degree!! My dad inspects meat for a living!! I am fine with stereotypical gender roles as long as they aren't forced on people. But, if I want to be a meat inspector, then let me have that opportunity. My father has a couple of co-workers who are literally a couple...a husband and wife, both meat inspectors. They passed the certification and training, so they have that job.

      The problem is, for gender to be ignored in a larger population (and eradicate VAWA, Women's Studies, etc) we would have to raise children from birth on a deserted island. It is impossible in our culture to raise kids without exposing them to someone or something that has prejudice. VAWA and Women's Studies and the like exist because somehow, it got decreed that someone who is down for the count for a week every month is weak, and someone who has to walk around in a very uncomfortable state for nine months in order to continue the species is second to someone who can continue working during that nine months, and some people refuse to acknowledge that periods and pregnancy do not make a woman unequal. Women may have begun in prehistoric days as "honor her, she continues our species!" but it's evolved into "lock her in your house, she is for your enjoyment and if the species continues, so much for the better!" therefore, historically, women have been discriminated against, and violence happens because women discovered that they can talk and read just like men can, and they'd like to be treated as more than decoration.

      Delete
    12. I think the disconnect is that you do close-ups, and I do overall view. Or at least, that's how it seems to me. John Doe is a good guy. Joe Schmo lost his place in college to a woman. Jane Doe is a horrible person. Anna Banana is demanding the job that should go to a man. I look at what seems more like an overall thing to me...the way women have taken second-place for years, the way women in general are portrayed on television, and men, for that matter. Women on tv or in a movie are whiny, emotional, backstabbing bitches (pardon the language). Men are either masculine, tough-guys, or else they're whiny, emotional, backstabbing gay guys who get mocked by everyone else in the world. You'd probably argue that the portrayal of men is pretty accurate, which makes me wonder if that's a self-fulfilling prophecy...Bobby thinks that Billy isn't such a bad kid...sure, he cries sometimes, but, y'know, he's a good guy. But that guy in the movie last week cried and his friend started laughing at him cause seriously, dude, why are you whining?? So Bobby decides that Billy is a wimp. The position women occupy in our culture. I don't like that there's a second place. Why does there have to be a second place? Until that is gone, VAWA and WS and all the rest have a place. Why don't we have a male beauty pageant? The success of Magic Mike (which has NO PLOT!!! SERIOUSLY, STUPIDEST THING EVER!!!!!!! Argh.....as a lesbian who went to see it because my mom wanted company, I watched it with clear eyes, unmuddled by "who cares about a plot?????") proves that it'd be HUGE. The swimsuit competition alone would get major props. But it's only the women who get to stand on stage and talk about world peace in their bikinis. There's no Victor's Secret, for skimpy speedos. Men aren't required to be good-looking and vilified if they don't fit that mold. Only women are. Heck, go to your average middle school and give the female bullies a self-esteem questionnaire and a quick quiz about how many beauty pageants and magazines they read. The male bullies, ask them how many movies and tv shows they watch, and which ones.

      But then, I could be bass-ackwards here. You could probably make the same argument in reverse, that I look at the close-ups, my little slice of the world, and you look at the big picture, the hidden conspiracy. I just feel like women being shoved aside and insulted into their proper place...the second stand on the awards podium...is the *visible* conspiracy.

      Delete
    13. Nobody is forcing children to play with sex-specific toys, but adults are now actively restricting sex-specific play, even when children choose it. And nobody is shoving women aside. Keeping a home was once a full time job, but an easier job than most men's jobs. It was "women's work" because to reverse roles would endanger women's ova (and since women are weaker and smaller, they would have to work harder and longer than men to produce as much as men. It was necessary due to technology.

      "someone who has to walk around in a very uncomfortable state for nine months in order to continue the species is second to someone who can continue working during that nine months..."

      That person who continues working those nine months, was the only source of food and shelter for the "non-working" person, who was actually working quite hard keeping a house.

      As technology advanced and homemaking became less exhausting, there was no reason for women to be expected to stay home, except to raise their own children. Don't you think it's weird that women now work and then pay a huge amount of their income for someone else to raise their children? If it's absolutely necessary, then yes, a mother must work. But most mothers who work, don't take jobs with hours that require little or no daycare, because those jobs aren't fun or fulfilling. Most men don't get the option of picking a fun or fulfilling job - they pick the job that supports their families, and if it isn't fun they usually stick with it anyway.

      Women achieved genuinely equal opportunity with men back in the seventies. Ever since then, the goal of feminism has been to give women BETTER opportunities than men, in the pursuit of equal OUTCOMES, in spite of talent, skill, and commitment.

      Delete
    14. Western women were never oppressed; they did the work that was most appropriate and efficient to their abilities. It is true that social norms were outpaced by technology early in the twentieth century, but that "problem" no longer exists. Feminism achieved everything it set out to achieve, a long time ago.

      Since the mid 70's, feminism has done nothing to promote equality between the sexes. It has stolen money, freedom (from imprisonment, literally) and opportunity from productive men, and given excessive money, freedom (from imprisonment) and privilege to women.

      Do you know why the ERA was never ratified? Not because men wanted to keep women in the kitchen, but because it contained provision that it didn't apply to men. Feminists actually tried to amend the US constitution so that men would have fewer civil rights than women. When it failed, feminists went on to do the exact same thing through the family courts, "education reform," and VAWA. Way back in the seventies, there were MRAs who wanted the language of the ERA to include males, and wanted it to be ratified. Feminists wouldn't allow that, and they rewrote history to indicate that men were the "bad guys."

      BTW, just in case you think you haven't been completely indoctrinated from early childhood on, I almost put this up as a post yesterday:

      "Google "encouraging girls in school" 110,000,000 pages

      Google "encouraging boys in school" 14,000,000 pages"

      Telling, isn't it? This country's entire education system doesn't care if boys lag behind or fall through the cracks, so long as girls get every possible advantage. Conspiracy? Opportunity? I don't know and I don't care, but it needs to stop.

      Delete
    15. Didn't know what the ERA was, so I took a moment to google it.

      http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm

      Did you realize that one of the first feminists ever is the woman who introduced it...phrasing it for both men and women? It didn't get passed until the wording was changed, and considering Congress was (and still is) mostly made up of old white guys, all that says is that the old white guys didn't think men needed the protection. Because men are masculine and they already have the higher position. Basically, a bunch of guys discriminated AGAINST THEMSELVES. I probably shouldn't find that as funny as I do.

      Or else it feels that boys don't need the support, because again, boys are masculine, tough, and strong. A theory upheld by people who point out that men are the ones who support the family, that boys are physically more capable, etc. For whatever reason, people seem to think that girls are stupider than boys, and therefore, girls need more encouragement. Also, someone commented on that post regarding different search phrases and found a different discrepancy.

      Honestly, for me, here is how I feel about groups like the ones you belong to, and similarly, the ones I belong to.
      Any time you are campaigning for more rights, I will support you to my last breath. Men's Rights, Women's Rights, Straight Rights, Gay Rights, Black, White, American, Mexican, Canadian, WHATEVER. If you are trying to advocate FOR someone, I am behind you 110%.
      But, when you're trying to advocate AGAINST a group of people, I will oppose you. When you say you want guys to have more rights, I shrug. "Sure! Awesome! That's great, guys seem to be decent people, except for a slice of them that I thankfully don't have to deal with often." When you say feminists are overall bad people and feminism should go away, I get grouchy and defensive. "Why does she think that EVERYONE, or even most people, are like that?? She can't look at me and know I'm a feminist. She'd probably like most of my feminist friends if she met them in person. Why does she hate me and a whole chunk of my friends when she doesn't even know us?"
      Say that I can't have a certain job because I myself am too weak. I am too small. I am not good at ____. But judge me by ME. Say my brother cannot have that job because he's not good with people. He is unable to do ______. But judge him by HIM. ANYONE who says that either of us cannot do something because of our DNA (aside from the obvious inability of a woman to biologically father a child, and a man to biologically give birth to a child) will bother me.
      When I see people talking about how they hate a given group of people, full-stop, what I hear is Westboro Baptist screaming about how America is doomed.

      Delete
    16. "For whatever reason, people seem to think that girls are stupider than boys, and therefore, girls need more encouragement."

      Those people are the political leaders of feminism, and a few TradCon/SoCon Churchians.

      Most people who call themselves feminists have no idea what the politically powerful and well financed feminists are doing - the ones who have the ear of the president and of Congress. Every single policy, law or initiative that presumes women to be weak, helpless and stupid, was written by feminists. Those policies, laws and initiatives create millions of jobs for women who have no real skills, paid for by men and women who DO have real skills. Feminism is parasitic and unjust, but it is profitable for women, so women "support" it, while saying that they believe in equal rights for everybody. Most of those feminism-generated jobs would not exist if men and women had equal rights. The purpose of MANY of those jobs is to violate the rights of men, in order to give unearned wealth to women.

      I hate feminism, and I think that if most self identified feminists understood what feminism really is (as evidenced by what it DOES - you can't separate the two) many of them would also hate feminism.

      Delete
    17. If "what it is" and "what it does" can't be separated, then why do we have so many people, including you, arguing that guns don't kill people? That people kill people? ______ didn't go to _______ and strangle people with ______'s bare hands, they pressed a piece of metal, which expelled a piece of metal, which killed someone. Guns kill people. Cars kill people. Pencils misspell things. Feminism isn't even a physical object, it's an idea. It's incredibly difficult to define what an idea does. You feel feminism steals from men. I feel that feminism gives women the right to have legal abortions, acknowledges the existence of a female libido, and supports the ability of women to choose what they want to do. Feminism does a LOT, and what it does isn't defined by a physical result, like guns, cars, pencils, etc. What it does is defined by what a given person associates with it.

      It's interesting that you just did what you sometimes accuse others of doing. You ignored my point that those Congressmen...because in that time, the VAST majority were indeed men, I checked...discriminated against themselves, that they were the ones who refused to pass the EPA that bothers you until it only applied to women (the only explanation I can come up with for this is that it's a point of honor for these men that they don't need the protection, because of the image of traditional masculinity. As in, if the image of traditional male-leader-of-the-house-and-hunter-protector had vanished, maybe they wouldn't have had such an issue with passing a law to protect both men and women). You focused solely on a single point that you felt comfortable refuting. I've done the same thing, yeah, but I admit it right there.

      But....but........uh....what?
      The feminists think that boys are smarter than girls, and girls need more encouragement. But then I'm seeing where MRAs think that boys are naturally, biologically, smarter and stronger than girls. Weren't you just saying that if we judge everyone on ability, the girls will be shoved out of jobs? Doesn't that logic translate pretty directly to boys are smarter (at least at job logic)?

      Do you have any examples of the specific jobs? I'm sure there's the ones like working in domestic violence shelters and the like (I'll pop up and point out that plenty of guys work with domestic violence groups, I've met several and spoken to more)...um...education? But, that's fairly necessary, and it does require an education, college, etc...real skills, trust me, it's insane teaching children...er...I'm stuck, but I'm sure you have plenty of examples I can't think of.

      Delete
    18. Oh. Bleh. EVA. Oops! One of those days. I think I should probably take my medicines and go to sleep now.

      Delete
    19. Guns and cars don't kill people, and pencils don't misspell words. When people use those tools in a specific way, people die and words are misspelled. Feminism is such a tool. Years ago, that tool was used to give women the vote, and to prevent women from being discriminated against. And yes, men are the ones who voted for that. They didn't think they were discriminating against themselves, because *at that time* they weren't. Early and mid twentieth century feminism did not discriminate against men; it prevented discrimination against women. (Almost everyone, including the vast majority of MRAs, MGTOW, and PUAs, agrees that legal equality is perfectly just and reasonable.) And amid the working class, MEN were thrilled by the legalization of abortion - they could have all the sex they wanted, and never be trapped into marriage. Working class women were NOT so thrilled, because shotgun weddings were the ticket out of poverty for many of them. (Back then most people would rather live in stark poverty than accept welfare or charity.)

      Due to its widespread support, feminism has become a tool that is now used to discriminate against men. It is one thing to encourage school girls to participate and compere in class; it is quite another to *discourage* boys from participating in class, and that is exactly what is happening. Competitive students (most often boys) who always raise their hands, are ignored while the teachers wait for the more timid students to raise theirs. Or they are acknowledged with a "Give someone else a chance." Competitive behavior in boys is seen as aggression and hyperactivity, which is a one way ticket to being labeled "problem children." Curious students (usually boys) who want to engage in class discussions, are frequently deemed "disruptive." Competitive behavior in girls however, is applauded and encouraged. This is reinforced on "Nerfed," sanitized playgrounds, in the name of safety: Aggressive, competitive, character-building "boy games" are not allowed.

      Delete
    20. VAWA is discrimination against every class of humans except women, but especially against men, whose resources make VAWA possible. There is no Violence Against Men Act. There is no Violence Against Children Act (even though women, the protected class, commit the vast majority of violence against children.) There is no Violence Against The Elderly Act. There is no Violence Against The Disabled Act. There is no Violence Against LGBT Act. Are women the only people who are entitled to the myriad protections of VAWA?

      I'm not clear on the point of the rest of your comment, but if employees were all judged on their talent and their productivity, most executives sales people and major decision makers would be men, and most support staff would be women. If VAWA were de-funded tomorrow, thousands of people (mostly women) would be out of work. Some cops and jail/prison staff would be laid off - The federal government provides money to jails based on the number of VAWA offenders incarcerated. Many prosecutors would lay off staff, because the federal government provides funding for every VAWA case that is prosecuted. There is no way any elected D.A. would waste the LOCAL taxpayers' money prosecuting false and frivolous DV cases. Thousands of "victims' advocates," social workers, and lawyers would be laid off for the same reason. These people are protecting women, most of whom are just as guilty as men, and they are NOT protecting children. In fact they are harming children by placing them in the care of abusive mothers - because it's profitable to treat fathers as criminals. Their jobs depend on it.

      The federal Social Security Administration gives local governments funding to match child support judgments. If the judgment is too high for dad to pay, he goes to jail and his kids get poverty, while another "child advocate" gets a paycheck. What do you suppose would happen to all those (primarily female) government employees, if family courts stopped giving default custody and child support awards to the POORER parent, and started giving custody to the higher earning parent, who in all likelihood is just as "good" a parent as the other?

      Discriminating against men is big business, and it's all done under the guise of feminism - protecting those poor helpless women from those awful oppressive men. Can you name one feminist policy from the last 20 years, that "gives" something to women without taking something from men? Maybe such a thing exists, but I'm unaware of it.

      Delete
    21. The bit of the comment you were uncertain on was me asking about the jobs that feminism created that are useless and exist simply to employ women for no reason.

      As someone who has been alive for quite a bit longer than I have, on the subject of abortion, could you clear that up? How did it become evil? I assume there were always people outraged over it, but...I mean, I don't think there were doctors being shot over it...? It's one of the things that's difficult to understand unless you were there.

      I was out talking to a friend of mine the other day, and it brought some stuff up to the forefront of my brain, so I'm gonna bounce subjects, sorry. Honest questions, here...they seem like more your area of expertise than mine.
      Why would a man stay in an abusive relationship? He has a job, he has children to care for, and his wife is a wackjob. This woman's brother had the cops called on him a little while ago and his wife told the cops he was selling his pills. The cop asked if it was true and he said "Let me put it this way. When she takes all of the money and spends it on her pot and my kids have no food, hell yeah I'm gonna sell them" (the cop promptly stated "I didn't hear that" and arrested the wife). So why would he stay in a relationship like that when the wife is currently in jail and there are police and family and friends...even her relatives agree that she's crazy. As in, diagnosedly crazy. And it seems like it'd be difficult to grant custody to a woman who is currently in the jail for several months. What keeps someone there? I am a feminist. I support women and women's rights, but that doesn't mean that I back up wackjobs.

      I think at this point, one of us is misinterpreting our stance...or the opponent's stance. I sat in a living room and heard a woman talking about what her husband is going through with his ex, and what her brother is dealing with re: his wife. I don't know if you realize this, but feminism doesn't mean I blindly stand behind anyone with a vagina. I do have a brain. In these cases, I am baffled (the ex-wife, btw, is receiving child support and food stamps for a kid she dropped off with my friend and the girl's father...back in September). I...do you think I back those women up? Is that why you get so angry? I call it feminism. And I'm going to keep calling it that because that is how I identify myself. But I hope that if you saw a man who abused his children or the system, you'd support his wife, because in that situation, she truly is right. And in situations like that, I want to clarify. I stand behind the party who is being abused...regardless of what's between their legs.

      Delete
    22. Ah...I may have found the disconnect.

      I have issues with societal standing. You have issues with things like jail time, military, and economics. I am a feminist because I look at how the world seems to feel about women, and it bothers me. I get outraged over things like slut-shaming, even though stud is the male equivalent and is a compliment. I get angry about things like people, male or female, who don't want a woman to have control over her body. I'll admit it. I'm self-centered. In the sense that I focus on the self. The things that are very personal...insults, language, and the like. Assaults on women (yes, I get beyond pissed about assaults on men, children, LGBT folk, etc...so if you prefer, I'll phrase it as "assaults"). I've grown up with a brother who doesn't understand the idea that my body is my space, and I've been ashamed of my body for a long time, so that is what colors my views. I'll say it frankly-I'm outraged that me wearing flattering clothes, because I'm finally happy with my body, could ever be used as an excuse to attack me. But I'd also be outraged if someone said that one of my gay male friends got attacked because he was wearing a rainbow shirt. I venture into economics and jobs and such, because I won't be entirely comfortable with women's job opportunities until there's a woman president, but that traces back to my main issues, how women are viewed, how Hilary Clinton and even Sarah Palin got attacked, not for their politics, but their looks and behavior, while Mitt (poor, poor Mitt! He just tripped all over himself! I started feeling bad for the guy towards the end) got attacked for his politics. My main reasons for defining myself as a feminist are the personal things...not the financial. You've pointed out many times that my personal feelings color a LOT of my positions. I've never experienced anything related to job discrimination, whether against me or a man in favor of me. I'm really not qualified to debate that.

      You debate about finances, economics, the things that are more government, legal matters, jobs, finances, etc. I'm concerned about how society in general feels towards women. You seem to be concerned about how society is treating men. I have issues with feelings, you're more interested in the results. Maybe that's man logic, maybe it's adult logic and I'll get it when I'm older. I have no idea. I know that for something to click to me, I need to experience it. And the only time I've ever experienced anything like what you're talking about is my old job doing door-to-door sales. Yes, the girls made more. Yes, that was cause there were more of us, because more of us applied, and yes, we made more, because we were young and adorable. You can probably argue that for how boys are treated, or that girls have that mysterious feminine power as adorable young children. Honestly, at 12 years old, it was money, I didn't care, and it was eight years ago...I barely remember.

      Delete
    23. "I am a feminist because I look at how the world seems to feel about women, and it bothers me."

      Why does it bother you? Where did you get the idea that there's something wrong with how the world seems to feel about women? (Your feminist upbringing, that's where.) "The world" treats women far better than it treats men, but you've been trained not to compare the two, not to notice how men are treated. When a woman is wronged, somebody wronged her; when a man is wronged, he probably did something to deserve it. Think you don't have this mindset? Didn't you refer to an "I need feminism" post about "they teach women how not to be raped but they don't teach men not to rape?" It is absolute anathema to suggest to a woman that she can and should take steps to ensure her own safety, but somebody actually believes that men don't know that rape is wrong? Or that men don't know what constitutes rape? You PERSONALLY might believe that women should be take responsibility for their safety, but feminism spends millions of dollars a year insisting that men alone should take responsibility for women's safety. It is feminists who convince young women that "we should teach men not to rape," instead of teaching young women to take control of their own lives - and be accountable for their own actions. And it is feminists who have rearranged the legal system TO BACK THEM in this inequality.

      The principles you claim are not feminist, they are egalitarian, and I share them. You say you don't like "how the world seems to feel about women." Why don't you educate yourself on the documented facts regarding how the world TREATS (regardless of feelings) women vs. how the world treats men? If you learn the facts that feminists intentionally IGNORE, you can compare the two. After you compare how the world treats men with how the world treats women - apples to apples, not apples to oranges - come back and tell me that there's something wrong with "how the world seems to feel about women."

      That phrase is very telling, btw - "seems" and "feel" are very subjective terms, perception that are easily manipulated. Should we use such subjective criteria as the basis for our laws and our culture? Don't we have a Constitution designed to prevent exactly that?

      Delete
    24. Here, give a listen:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_7FLjQTFweM

      Not once does Paul propose legally limiting any woman's right reproductive choice. What he proposes is giving men THE SAME choices. THIS is equality, and feminist fight it tooth and nail. "Think of the children!" is legally ALWAYS directed to men, because for men, thinking of the children is not optional. For women, legally, it is.

      I was serious when I suggested reading the archives at A Voice for Men, and Fathers and Families, and S.A.V.E. and The Spearhead. You can choose to expose yourself only to "facts" that reinforce your subjective perceptions, or you can look beyond your own personal experiences, and earn some objective credibility.

      EVERYBODY has subjective opinions; there is noting special or outstanding about subjective opinions. These days, not too many people bother with objective facts, especially facts that conflict with their subjective opinions. You are a very intelligent woman. You have the intellectual capacity to internalize objective facts, and to use them productively, if you're not afraid to look at them.

      Delete
    25. Two things I've been told, that really helped me "grow up."

      "Every single decision is an economic decision - a cost-benefit analysis."

      and

      "Every decision is conflict resolution."

      Delete
    26. I never said that my emotions should dictate laws. I don't like the idea of any law being based on an emotional response to something (my GSA at school has a tendency to go out counter-protesting whenever the local churches wander onto campus to protest us. One of our debators actually managed to get a protestor to agree that his religion should not restrict our rights...GSA is Gay Straight Alliance, by the way). My emotions dictate how I interpret things, and the problem is that I don't interpret things the same way you do.

      Interpretations are dictated by personal feelings, no matter how much anyone pretends they aren't. A dozen people can look at the same statistics and feel entirely differently about them. And feelings and emotions do influence our reactions. I'm not saying my feelings and emotions should dictate law, I'm saying that they heavily influence how I deal with and interpret situations and information.

      Here's the brick wall I run into. It doesn't seem worth it to be treated like a china doll when that means that my free will is being taken away, or I'm being heavily shamed for exercising that free will in a way that affects nobody but myself. If I go out dancing in a short skirt, all that's happening is me, dancing in a short skirt. It doesn't mean that I'm a skank or whore. If I say no to the guy who asks me to go home with him, that doesn't make me a bitch. If I do go home with someone, that doesn't make me a slut. I don't talk about a gender gap in wages, because I don't know much about that. But a guy who sleeps with a bunch of ladies is scoring, the opposite is a slut...even if she's only slept with one guy, and it's just that nobody likes her. In high school I got to overhear boys exchanging sex tips and high-fiving over having hooked up with Sally last weekend, while at the same time, bashing Molly as being such a total slut. Molly was my age and had had sex with one guy, whom she was in a committed relationship with (they're married now and completely adorable). She absolutely adores him, they've been dating since they were in eighth grade. I suppose you'd say she was submitted to him, but she ended up getting verbally and emotionally knocked around for it. That's the part that bothers me. You just said that facts are the important part, not emotions, but women get arbitrarily hit by random slurs by anyone who doesn't like them, regardless of reality.


      RE: rape
      Lots of people get abused, right? Men get raped and attacked, same for gays...
      But the only one where we tell them to take responsibility for their own safety is women. Have you ever seen anyone tell a gay person they shouldn't go to their favorite gay bar, in case there's a few drunk guys outside who're just waiting for someone to beat up? But we think nothing of telling a woman to stay away from a bar and not drink, because she could be raped. Apparently, male-on-male rape is a much more prevalent problem than the media would like to say, but we have never told men to be careful about that dark alley they cut through, keep a phone handy or learn to defend themselves. I'm sure you'll tell me it's happened, but I've never seen, nor heard of, a straight man having any hesitation about walking through a bad neighborhood. Men don't live in fear. And when someone says that as a woman, I need to take all the responsibility for my own safety, I hear that my fear when walking at night is completely justified, because if something happens to me, it's my fault. If I'm stabbed, raped, robbed, then it was my fault for being in a position where that could happen.

      Delete
    27. You pointed out that obviously, duh, men know that rape is bad. But the media and all their buddies and culture in general is saying that if she's saying no, she's playing hard to get, and she really means yes. Rape jokes are huge. It's not that they think rape is a good thing, it's just that everything is saying that if she doesn't say no and doesn't say yes, then it's totally ok. And when a guy goes "Yeah, I'd rape her", that enforces that. Even when it's metaphorical. He's thinking in those terms, and now, so are his buddies. I don't hear or see girls ever just casually joking about raping a guy or taking a knife to his man-bits...when a woman says that the mental image of a penis in a disposal is hilarious, there was an event that prompted that. In average conversation, people don't see attractive guys and go "yeah, I'd rape him". But it does happen to girls. Maybe it's a minority of guys, sure, but it happens, and it continues to happen, because yeah, keeping an eye on your drink and not flashing boobs around are a good thing. But if we focus on that, then the casual rape jokes get to continue. If there's a huge backlash against the people who are doing the raping...let's just ignore the women for now, get rid of the culture where we joke about rape and assault and the rest, and once that's dealt with, then we can do a big campaign for women to be careful. First, let's deal with people who think that someone wearing a shirt that says "suicidal" is an okay excuse to stab them a few times, and promptly use that as an excuse in court, and win.

      Delete
    28. I have to leave for work now, but this - "I don't hear or see girls ever just casually joking about raping a guy or taking a knife to his man-bits..." is because you're not looking very hard. Circumcision? Casually dismissed by millions every single day. And castrating males is routinely discussed by many of the leaders of feminism, as a "cure" for all of the horrors wrought by testosterone.

      Delete
    29. A few specific points:
      "Scoring" vs. "Slutty" is human nature. Men naturally value sexually inexperienced as long-term mates, because such women are less likely to cuckold them into raising some other guy's bastard. Women naturally value sexually experienced men because male sexual "performance" indicates male dominance. It is WOMEN, not men who give "playas" their high status, because they are perceived by women as more virile than less promiscuous men. Women and men both respect dominance in males. We can't help it.

      Regarding personal safety, we don't have to develop college orientation programs telling men to be careful, because men learned to be careful when they were children walking home from school. We DO have to teach women how to be careful, because as children they were sheltered from harm much more than boys - to the point that they have become unaware of many dangers. Additionally, in a dangerous situation, a man is more likely to have the ability to defend himself and escape, than is a woman. Prevention of violence is more important to those who can't fight effectively once violence has begun.

      Wearing revealing clothes, getting smashed, and abandoning the relative safety of a group of friends, are not an invitation to rape. These actions are however, NOT taking steps to prevent rape. Rapists are opportunists and they don't wear labels. They blend in with decent people and look for those who are vulnerable. If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be a target. Nothing will ever change this - it's a lot like gravity. It is neither "blaming the victim," nor "treating women like fragile flowers," to teach young women what young men already learned back in grade school.

      http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminism-and-rape-jokes/

      Rape jokes don't create or excuse rapists. Humor is a valid way to cope with horror; it always has been. Yes, they are in poor taste, but they are not a big deal. Anyone who spends time and energy trying to make them into a big deal, is not sending time and energy preventing rape, ant therefore has no business claiming to care about rape. The same goes for race jokes. It's hot air objecting to hot air.

      Delete
    30. Again, circumcision is routinely ignored because it has been part of our culture for years. Circumcision generally applies to babies, and I highly doubt that a whole bunch of ladies are giggling over taking a scalpel to a week-old-infant's foreskin. It happens, but it is not joked about. I really doubt it's that easy to find women joking about Bobby and the state of his foreskin. Casually dismissed isn't the same as deliberately singled out as humor. It is majorly triggery to victims of rape to have someone act like it's funny.

      Why is it that every horrible practice is human nature and we need to hold to human nature, except for the things that you don't like? I'm not saying you're wrong, you've probably looked into this a lot more than I have, but you've pointed out yourself that human nature, in a woman, is to have sex with the alpha and then mate (marry, or in ye olde times, live with) the beta, to raise the kids. That practice is also human nature, by your own admission, and what we do now, marrying the man who will not produce the best children and bearing only those less-than-best children, is unnatural. But we've warped natural into something better for the men who don't want to raise a child that didn't develop from his sperm. But we can't change natural so that a woman can be respected for doing something she wants to do?

      Exactly. Men as a group tend to be stronger than women as a group. So teaching a woman to carry mace or a gun is probably not actually gonna do a whole lot. We're also taught that in a robbery, you stop and do whatever the robber wants. You do not fight back. Women get conflicting messages, and when someone tries to attack them, they will tend to freeze in self-preservation. Not to mention, by the time an attacker is close enough to know that they're trying to attack you, they're probably close enough to wrestle that gun or mace from their victim. Karate isn't a whole lot of use, again, once they're close enough to know they're not just robbing you. The bad person grabs their victim, and the victim is now pretty much helpless because as a group, rapists are not stupid enough to single out someone with a lot of physical strength. Being physically strong, as a woman, is frowned upon. Feel free to look up some info on female bodybuilders and what they deal with. If I were attacked, I'd be useless, because I simply have a small frame. I've met guys who are the same way. I am not physically capable of weight-lifting or the like.

      Ever hear of the dad who found a guy in his daughter's room and started shooting? He got charged with...assault, I think. There are actually people who get sued by their rapist for injuring them. Plus the ones whose rapists sue for custody of the child that resulted from the rape.

      Delete
    31. I know that humor is a valid way to cope with horror. I am looking at my body and seeing a lifetime of never having biological children, probably a wheelchair or other assistive device by the time I reach my mother's age. I am on so many medications that I am genuinely afraid of the day when an offer of employment comes with a drug test...they're legal, but what employer wants to take the chance that I'm taking them legally? If it's between me and an equally qualified person without those drugs, then I'm not getting a job. I live in Kentucky, where we have a law called KASPER. It's meant to keep pill abusers from getting their pills. In actuality, a friend of mine with this condition checked herself into a detox unit when her doctor's office sent out a urine sample to check for her medications, but they ordered the wrong test, obviously found no medications, and concluded that she was selling her pills. She was off an opioid medication cold-turkey. I found out that I can only transfer my controlled substance prescription once...so if I ever leave the town my college is in, I'm up a creek without a paddle.
      I refer to myself as a "genetic freak". "I have a genetic defect!" "Oh, I'm just a circus freak" "So, there's a school talent show. Would they like a contortionist?" There is an actual meme dedicated to my condition and I love it.

      But here's the thing. I'm white...I'm not gonna joke about black people. They go through that experience, or they have the potential to go through the real-world equivalent of what I'm joking about (in the article you linked, there was an example of "A house got robbed and we don't mind joking that it must've been a black guy"...while the black guy has the actual possibility of cops showing up on his door when someone got robbed, despite his innocence. There've been studies done where people are shown a picture of a man standing in a subway holding a spoon. When the man is white, it's a spoon, and they're confused. When the man is black, they see it as a knife). I am ok with my family and friends joking about my condition, because they go through it with me. They deal with it too. I won't make blond jokes, because I'm not blond and it seems mean to pick on a stereotype that I will never experience (I'm too pale for dying my hair blond. I would look really dumb). I won't automatically tear into rape jokes, because I feel that the only people who have the right to joke about something so awful are the people who either have dealt with or have the potential to come across it in their life. I read a comic about an abortion clinic, where one doctor made a dead-baby joke. Many people feel those are in poor taste. I don't like them much, but in that context, she deals with abortions on a daily basis, and I can see that she might need to let off that steam.

      It's when men (who are, outside of prison, unlikely to be raped, as far as I know) who do not know anyone who has been raped (that they know of, at least) who are joking about it.

      And an example of both why I don't like people joking about rape *and* why I feel that the efforts to tell boys rape is bad are not wasted-

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/video-of-steubenville-high-school-students-joking-about-alleged-gang-rape-leaked-by-hacktivist-group/

      Worst is that this is actual video of a girl being raped. There is video evidence of her being carried around by her attackers. And there are still rumors that she made it up.

      Delete
    32. Regarding my discussion of women naturally desiring Alpha sperm and Beta security, that is no different from men naturally desiring sexual variety and family security. All of these natural desires, when taken to their extreme, are counterproductive to society as a whole. Indulging in them is narcissistic, for members of both sexes. (But women are better able to get away with such narcissism without no consequences - thanks in large part to feminism.) My point was that "natural" inclinations need to be channeled productively, not simply denied.

      The many specific example you state, of individual behaviors, are not representative of the whole. You only talk about one side, because you have only allowed yourself to be exposed to one side. When I was your age, I would have agreed with nearly everything you have said. Even ten years ago I would have agreed withe most of it; I was vaguely aware that there must be more to it, but I had no idea what that "more" was. I have spent the last year and a half looking at the other side. I'm not afraid that I might be "indoctrinated by misogynists," because even though I try to ignore it, the feminist perspective is ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE.

      Every time you look at any mass media, you get the "feminist" interpretation of every single occurrence. We could go on forever discussing minutiae, but we would get nowhere. Feminism likes that. Feminism preys on the undeniable fact that women tend to act on their emotions; if they can get a million individual women into a tizzy over what is actually a relatively rare occurrence, then a million women won't notice that it is indeed a rare occurrence. When they reflect on it later, they will only remember their personal outrage.

      This is how propaganda works.

      Try a new way of thinking. Assume that everything you see or hear in the media, is either the reporting or the repetition of propaganda. (Pretend that the person saying it is a misogynistic xenophobe whose motives are suspect.) Ask yourself what they AREN'T saying. Try it. I'm serious. You have the mental capacity to do this, and most of your peers DON'T - their critical thinking skills have been suppressed and not developed. Play Devil's Advocate and assume that everything you read is a lie, especially the things that get you emotionally riled up. There is no point in arguing one side of an issue if you refuse to see the other side, because you don't even understand what you are arguing against. The mass media is a feminist echo chamber, full of people saying, "OMG, you're right!" because it FEELS right, and they never bother to find out if it might be wrong.

      Delete
    33. Devil's Advocate is fun, by the way. And when I'm dealing with real people, I do that. It bugs the heck out of most of the people I know.

      I'll do that, if you try a similar experiment. When you come up against something a feminist did or said, assume that this is a small subset of feminists. That this isn't everyone. Remind yourself that if I was raped by a man and began insisting that all men are horrible people, you would disagree, and then apply that same logic in reverse. When you see "feminists say", ask yourself "How many feminists?" There are plenty of us, and more who are like a bottle of "Mr. Pibb". The label isn't the same, but once you open the bottle, you know that it's Dr. Pepper.

      I am lucky. I know that not all men are horrible, but I know that some are. I've seen guys who are cruel, nasty, vicious people. And I've met my best friend's sweet boyfriend (they are ridiculously adorable together and I always get smiley when I think about them, because she is incredibly nice and he is awesome and I love seeing good people happy) and my grandfather (my brother shot him with a water gun one day. He got up, went stomping in the house, and we're all sad now and angry at brother. He comes out a minute or two later...with a BIG BUCKET OF WATER. The worst part is, he got me with it! I didn't even do it!) and my uncles and my first and only real boyfriend and the young men in suits who pop up around my campus every so often (Mormon mission trips) and plenty of other good guys.

      I would never think of assuming that the men who have a woman grabbed by the arm and are practically dragging her around (and, sadly, I've seen as many of those as I have of the good guys I mentioned above) are the sole representatives of manliness.
      As a little thought experiment, try the same...assume that the feminists who said that women can't be fulfilled staying at home raising children, or whatever else, are merely a subset. There are Democrats who don't like gay marriage, there are Republicans who think the idea of "legitimate rape" is absurd, but they all classify themselves under the same label as the rest of their party. Just because some feminists do or say certain things, doesn't mean all of them do. I think you may have a slightly skewed viewpoint, too...if I stood in the center of Times Square buck naked, something tells me that I wouldn't have a real good view of men. Possibly not women either, but I think the majority of uncomfortable eyes and wandering hands would belong to men. You are on the internet. The polite, calm feminists are generally polite and calm enough that they say "No. I'm not going to debate, because this person is too steadfast in their views, and I'm too steadfast in mine, and it'll come to a shouting match." I'm a lot less polite and calm at heart than I seem, otherwise I wouldn't've felt the need to say anything. The radical feminists are the ones that you attract to you by virtue of having this blog. Of course you don't get a good view of feminists. Duh.

      Delete
    34. I did that experiment for most of my life. I WAS one of those polite calm feminists, and I DID recognize the differences between subsets. The problem with my past viewpoint was that I assumed that justice and compassion for women were what most subsets had in common. It's not that I was wrong, it's that I never saw WHAT ELSE most of thee subsets had in common - a naive willingness to sacrifice (and take for granted) innocent men, in order to protect all women, innocent or not.

      "I know that not all men are horrible, but I know that some are."

      It is the vocal and powerful feminists, who push for the policies that treat all men as if they are horrible. You may not agree with them, but I don't see any of the compassionate feminists saying "No! That's not feminism, that's oppression!"

      It was my realization that feminists WOULD NOT TOLERATE my compassion for men, that mad me realize I'm not a feminist. Sure, lots of feminists feel sympathy for men who are screwed over by feminism, but I haven't met one feminist who would lobby against VAWA. The calm polite feminists seem to see these men as the unfortunate collateral damage of a "necessary" situation.

      Girl Write What just published a good video, and a follow-up is coming, on how feminism IS a hate movement; give it a listen:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMifHT1AwY

      I strongly recommend subscribing to her channel and browsing her archives. She's one of the smartest women you will ever encounter.

      Delete
  5. Wait. Wait. Hang on.

    So according to you, woman's biggest asset in the world is her looks, along with her vagina and its various functions? And the best thing she can do use them to enter into a "mutually beneficial alliance" -- AKA trade it in with a man in exchange for material comfort and a cush life where our decisions are made for us and we get to hang out and raise kids.

    HOWEVER, the PLOT THICKENS! According to some of your other blog posts, the new terrible, terrible young generation of 'sluts' has been giving sex out for free! They've been doing it for FUN and not for SECURITY! The horror! Don't they know that they need to stop immediately! The "mutual alliance" must only occur after limiting the supply of sex in order to obtain more demand for it and therefore more 'value.'

    Sounds like you, madam, are encouraging all of us to be nothing more than glorified, economically-savvy hookers.

    Don't worry, I'm not judging your way. I just you to consider the possibility and own up to the fact that if you follow this line of thinking, you're only trading your biology for finances, making you nothing more than a 'toot.

    Answer me this: does this "Woman Power" you're talking about include taking exaggerated pride in the sole fact that your biggest contribution to the world is the most common thing in the animal kingdom: shag and pop out children?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you were addressing more than a couple of phrases of what I have written, I'd address your comment seriously. However, this is not Reddit. I rarely need to delete trolls but I pay them no mind. If you'd care to have a serious discussion, feel free to identify yourself and ask a serious question or two.

      Delete
  6. Popping in for a quick apology-in-advance, by the way. My classes start back next Wednesday, and I already failed one of my first classes, I've got an appointment to try to get some disability services (possibly a LiveScribe which is like heaven in a rechargeable pen I love it so much), and I'm working in the early mornings again, so there's a good chance that when I do manage to get on here, it'll be me fighting off naptime at 6:30 AM of a midnight-8am shift. My logic is probably gonna take a short holiday and my sleep schedule is going to be rearranging itself, so I'm gonna be useless for much more than daily functioning for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hate to do this again, but I'm pretty much bowing out at this point. Fifteen credit hours worth of school, GSA once a week and crafting club every other week, tutoring a very sweet girl with ADHD for an hour a week, plus working 36 hours a week, and somehow sleeping, eating, and doing homework.

    (Yes I know it's my own fault for taking on so much. Don't get me wrong, I would not give up any of that if you paid me. Well...actually, yeah, if you'd give me 7.25 an hour to give up my work shifts and sit at home, I would totally take that, but the clubs and tutoring are my own darn fault and I love them)

    I'm actually doing better at getting everything done on time now that I'm almost overbooked than I was last semester, when I had lots of free time, but this does mean that...well, I have almost no free time. So...yeah, I might pop on here and there to comment on stuff, because you do post interesting stuff, even if I don't always agree with it, but I probably won't have time for actual debate. If I tried, I'd end up with some more of that exhausted and emotional reasoning, and I don't want to do that.

    Also, it seems stupid to leave a bunch of replies on different posts, so...

    The new pic of Pooka is completely adorable she is so cute!! D'awwww

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for stopping by. Come back anytime, when you're not so over-scheduled!

      Delete